Notes on David Day's Tolkien Books

by Steuard Jensen

David Day's book A Tolkien Bestiary is
an illustrated guide to creatures and characters in Tolkien's
Middle-earth. It can be entertaining to read, due both to the
attractive pictures and the vivid descriptions that Day weaves out of
many little-known details from Tolkien's books. However, it is
important to be aware that a considerable number of other details in
those vivid descriptions were invented by Day himself with little or
no justification in the texts, and that these extrapolations are not
distinguished from the justified facts in any way.

To demonstrate this, Conrad Dunkerson has cited the following entries
from the book. Exactly one of the four "reflects the texts accurately
without invention", in his words; see if you can figure out which.

[Taken from an article on
rec.arts.books.tolkien on 28 Sep 2000:
Msg-ID: CxPA5.10071$tl2.717797@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net]

"DWIMMERLAIK ... In the land of Rohan in the time
of the Riders of the Mark, all such haunting spirits were named
Dwimmerlaik. Such were the superstitions of these Rohirrim horsemen
that even the Elves of Lothlorien and the Ents of Fangorn were named
Dwimmerlaik and were thought to be similar evil spirits."

"FLIES OF MORDOR ... These were grey, brown and
black insects; they were loud, hateful and hungry, and they were all
marked, as Orcs of that land were marked, with a red eye-shape upon
their backs."

"GIANTS ... Also, in the tales of Hobbits, there
were rumours of great Giants who, in league with Orcs, guarded the
High Passes in Rhovanion."

"TELCONTARI ... He chose Telcontar as the name of
his House for this was the Quenya form of Strider, the name by which
he went in his years of exile. His descendants and successors
preserved the name of the House that Aragorn had founded, calling
themselves the Telcontari."

You may have recognized that the "Flies of Mordor" entry was the
accurate one, but the styles of these entries are virtually identical:
only someone who already knew the books well would pick this up.

What's wrong with the others? Under "Dwimmerlaik", there is
absolutely nothing in Tolkien's writings that suggests this term was
applied to the Elves or the Ents by anyone. I know of no basis for
the claim that the Rohirrim were unduly superstitious, either, and I
would describe their impression of the Elves and Ents as "perilous, if
they exist" rather than "evil spirits".

Under "Giants", Tolkien's writings give absolutely no indication
that the Giants were "in league with Orcs" or that they were actively
"guarding" the mountain passes. In fact, in The
Hobbit Gandalf considers getting a giant to block up the
Goblins' new gate. As for "in the tales of Hobbits", the only example
I know of is The Hobbit itself; using the
plural "tales" is clearly an extrapolation (whether it's a safe one or
not). As for "Telcontari", it's worth noting that this word does not
actually appear in Tolkien's books (though most agree that it would be
the correct plural): Day's firm comments here are an extrapolation
from Tolkien's texts.

In short, it is not wise to rely on this book for information on
Tolkien's vision of Middle-earth. If that is not a problem for you,
then those invented details can make the book a very enjoyable read.
(Just don't quote it in discussions of Tolkien's actual works!)

I have not read any of Day's books all the way through, but I have
read or skimmed parts of at least four of them. (I know that makes me
less than well qualified to write even a limited "review" like this; I
apologize for that, but with the help of Conrad and others I hope I
have been fair.) In every case, my impression has been exactly as
described above: they are interesting collections of information about
Middle-earth, but they all tend to extrapolate from Tolkien's own
writings in order to make Day's books more fun to read. Again, this
isn't a problem if you want to enjoy them for their own sake, but it
can make them quite deceptive as references for Tolkien's
world.